You are on page 1of 3

WARREN v. DIGUGLIELMO et al Doc.

2
Case 2:07-cv-02942-RK Document 2 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WILLIAM D. WARREN : CIVIL ACTION


v. :
DAVID DIGUGLIELMO : NO. 07-cv-2942

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (commonly known as

“AEDPA,” and codified as 28 U.S.C. §§2241-2266) deals with the right of all persons in

state custody, or in federal custody, to file a petition in a federal court seeking the

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. If such a writ of habeas corpus is issued by a

federal court, the prisoner will be released from either state custody or federal custody

(as the case may be) on the grounds that his rights guaranteed by the United States

Constitution, and/or by a federal law, and/or by a treaty entered into by the United

States, have been violated. Benchoff v. Colleran, 404 F.3d 812 (3rd Cir. 2005); Okereke

v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3rd Cir. 2003); Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480 (3rd Cir.

2001); United States v. Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3rd Cir. 1997).

Petitioner in the instant matter seeks relief pursuant to AEDPA (more specifically,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254). By means of AEDPA, Congress intentionally created a

series of restrictive gate-keeping conditions which must be satisfied for a prisoner to

prevail regarding a petition seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §2254. One such intentionally restrictive gate-keeping condition is AEDPA’s

strict and short statute of limitations, created by 28 U.S.C. §2244(d). Another

intentionally restrictive gate-keeping condition is AEDPA’s so-called “second or

successive rule”, created by 28 U.S.C. §2244(b), which generally forbids a litigant

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:07-cv-02942-RK Document 2 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 2 of 3

from filing a 28 U.S.C. §2254 habeas if that litigant had at least one prior 28 U.S.C.

§2254 habeas that was dismissed with prejudice. For purposes of the second or

successive rule, the concept of ‘dismissal with prejudice’ means either:

1. that the prior case was dismissed after merits consideration and denial on
the merits; or,

2. that the prior case was dismissed on grounds of procedural default;1 or,

3. that the prior case was dismissed on grounds of AEDPA’s statute of


limitations.

Villot v. Varner, 373 F.3d 327 (3d Cir. 2004); Holloway v. Horn, 355 F.3d 707 (3d Cir.

2004); Jones v. Morton, 195 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 1999); Hull v. Kyler, 190 F.3d 88 (3d Cir.

1999); Christy v. Horn, 115 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 1997). AEDPA provides in relevant part

that before such a second or successive petition is filed in the district court, the prisoner

must first get permission to file in the district court from the circuit court, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(A), and that without such circuit permission, the district court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction to consider such a habeas petition. Villot v. Varner, 373 F.3d

327 (3d Cir. 2004); Holloway v. Horn, 355 F.3d 707 (3d Cir. 2004); Jones v. Morton,

195 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 1999); Hull v. Kyler, 190 F.3d 88 (3d Cir. 1999); In re Minarik, 166

F.3d 591 (3d Cir. 1999); Christy v. Horn, 115 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 1997). The strict

requirements annunciated in AEDPA’s second or successive rule were intentionally

enacted in order to support the Congressional policy of creating finality with respect to

1
Procedural default occurs when a §2254 petitioner in this district court
previously had the right to file an appeal of the conviction and/or sentence involved to a
state court, or the right to file an application for post-conviction relief the conviction
and/or sentence involved to a state court, concerning specific issues, but the petitioner
did not, in fact, file such an appeal or application, and some procedural rule of the state
court dictates that the time has passed for such a state filing.
2
Case 2:07-cv-02942-RK Document 2 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 3 of 3

state and federal criminal prosecutions that involve federal constitutional issues.

Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202 (2003); Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001);

Crews v. Horn, 360 F.3d 146 (3rd Cir. 2004).

On July 18, 2007, petitioner filed the above-captioned petition in this court

seeking Habeas Corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Petitioner has filed previous

petitions in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254, labeled 97-cv-0293,00-cv-4656 and

01-cv-1230 which attacked the same conviction and/or sentence. The priors labeled 97-

cv-0293 and 01-cv-1230 were dismissed with prejudice; accordingly, the second or

successive rule is triggered in this matter and this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, this Day of , 2007, it is

hereby

ORDERED that this civil action is, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and it is

further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall mark this matter as CLOSED in this

court for all purposes, including statistics.

s\ Robert F. Kelly
ROBERT F. KELLY, U.S. District Judge